Direct Checkout

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Despite annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, the description adds meaningful behavioral value: it clarifies the cost (3 MESH/call), the architectural model (owner-direct, mesh never touches funds), and that it returns a hosted payment link. The openWorldHint=true is reinforced by the description's emphasis on the external Stripe integration. No annotation contradiction present.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded, leading with the tool purpose and core value proposition in the first sentence. The parenthetical (3 MESH/call, a tool · commerce) adds useful metadata but is slightly cluttered. No wasted sentences, but the format is a bit informal/marketing-toned which slightly detracts from precision.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, the description adequately explains the purpose, cost model, security model, and output (hosted payment link). No output schema exists, so the description's statement about returning a payment link is important and present. It could potentially mention failure modes (invalid Stripe key) but is reasonably complete for this tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds clarity beyond the schema by emphasizing the security posture of passing YOUR OWN Stripe key (bolded, repeated in both description and schema), reinforcing the critical safety property of the stripe_key parameter. The amount_cents and description parameters are self-explanatory integers/strings, though the description doesn't add much beyond schema for those.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool creates a hosted Stripe payment link using the owner's own Stripe key, with the mesh never touching funds. It explicitly positions this as the POS-contract-safe way to take online and QR orders, distinguishing it from other commerce tools like pos-rescue and merchant-discovery.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly explains when to use this ('the POS-contract-safe way to take online and QR orders') and highlights the key safety benefit (guests pay the owner directly, mesh never touches money). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the commerce-specific framing among siblings like pos-rescue and merchant-discovery provides reasonable distinction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.